TAGLIONE (TALIONE). – A practice and penal law first enunciated in the “Code of the Covenant” (Ex. 20, 24; 23, 12), where compensation owed to the injured party in cases of assault is discussed, according to whether or not it has produced bodily injury. “If misfortune follows, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (ibid. 21, 23-25).
In Lev. 24, 19-20, in a series of penal prescriptions, it is similarly stated: “Whoever mistreats his neighbor shall receive equal treatment: wound for wound, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: whatever he has done to another shall be done to him.” Deut. 19, 19-21 prescribes to the judges: “You shall do to him (the false accuser) what he plotted to do to his brother. Thus you shall eradicate evil from your midst, and the rest, upon hearing it, shall be afraid. You must not let yourself be moved by pity, but shall exact life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” This concerns satisfaction granted to the offended party. The offended party tends to exact more. The Mosaic prescription, limiting vengeance to reciprocity, mitigated its harshness and especially prevented its progressively greater repercussions, such as would have occurred by force of the very ancient Semitic custom of blood vengeance, which involved the entire clan or family of the offended party. Similar prescriptions were found in the Code of Hammarubi (§ 196 ff.) and in the Roman law of the Twelve Tables, from which the name t. derives. “Si membrum rupit... talio esto” (Table VIII). What appears to be a harsh law was therefore originally a mitigation of the rough primitive sentiments. Something harsh and immature is also apparent in the fact that the law of t. does not contemplate the case of intentional harm, but only the harm produced, whatever the intention of the person responsible.
There is progress in the fact that legislation, inspired by the constant rule of restoring justice and peace without neglecting to punish guilt, entrusts the execution of t. to the authorities; the private individual’s satisfaction is thus replaced by the conception of “like for like” as an act of general justice; in practice, the distinction between culpable and involuntary injury imposed itself spontaneously. In Hammurabi, a further advance can be observed: the tendency to replace the execution of t. with monetary penalties. In Israel, rabbinic jurisprudence (Bábhā' qammā', VIII, 1 ff.) also arrived at this, probably as early as the time of Christ, without, however, abolishing the law.
In proclaiming the Christian law, Jesus invited his followers, out of love, to renounce even the right to compensation (Mt. 5, 38-41): as with all the renewals proposed in the Sermon on the Mount, he indicates a norm of religious and moral perfection. In this case too, he does not require the public authorities to neglect the just punishment of offenders, but inculcates the new law upon his individual disciples, allowing his doctrine of charity, through its gentleness, to permeate civil legislation as well.